Suppose they'd gone back to 2086 instead and found that no physical currency was in use. They'd still need to get some money, wouldn't they?

Click to expand...

The sequence of events would have been more difficult for Kirk, but the result would have been the same. Kirk would have first had to (somehow) have established a bank account. Sold the glasses. Instead of receiving cash, the value would have gone into the account. Which the officers would have pulled from.

I seriously doubt that there will be vending machines for newspapers in 2086, but perhaps Kirk and crew would witness someone purchasing a soda from a vending machine with their phone (or some other method). Reminding them that they had no access to their own accounts in the future.

And Picard dialog there is the sole reference to there being no money in the future.

Click to expand...

No, Jake Sisko and Nog have at least one extensive conversation about it.

Click to expand...

In the scene you're referring to, Nog specifically said Humanity gave up currency. Interestingly, Nog didn't say the Federation as a whole had. Jake at no point said there was no money, only that he didn't need it, which was false.

Now only a few episodes before, Jake personally engaged in a business transaction that resulted in Jake acquiring ... currency (GPL).

Given that people in the 23rd/24th centuries still get sick, doesn't it automatically follow that they also still "need money?"

Is he talking about physical currency there?

Click to expand...

It is true that people in the past had physical currency.

Yeah, like I said, irretrievably self-contradictory.

Click to expand...

Pretty consistent really, there are dozens and dozens of pieces of dialog about buying, selling, owning inside of the Federation. There is only one single line, in one movie, where one character overtly states money doesn't exist.

Women not being allowed to be Starfleet captains (I detest Turnabout Intruder). Granted, Roddenberry originally wanted a female XO, but that was turned down by the network execs as too radical.

Click to expand...

I always took Lester's ramblings as that of someone who was plain crazy.

Click to expand...

That's a logical way to rationalize it, but Roddenberry did allegedly state that it is meant to mean women aren't starship captains. Of course, if that's true, it's been rightfully ignored since Enterprise showed us female captains predating TOS.

The sequence of events would have been more difficult for Kirk, but the result would have been the same.

Click to expand...

You're not hearing me. You offer an interpretation of Kirk's words such that he's referring to physical currency only. My point is that his words make no sense if interpreted in that way. They need to get some money, be it physical or otherwise. If physical currency were obsolete in 1986, Kirk and company would still need to get some money, wouldn't they? So it makes no sense for Kirk to be referring to physical currency. His statement is a non-sequitur. Whereas if he's referring to money in general, his statement makes perfect sense.

In the scene you're referring to, Nog specifically said Humanity gave up currency. Interestingly, Nog didn't say the Federation as a whole had. Jake at no point said there was no money, only that he didn't need it, which was false.

Click to expand...

"It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement."

If "currency" refers solely to physical money, then "currency-based economics" isn't a thing. The phrase doesn't mean anything. Nor does the adoption of 'a philosophy of self-enhancement' suggest itself as standing in contrast to the use of physical currency. Again, your interpretation renders the statement meaningless.

Now only a few episodes before, Jake personally engaged in a business transaction that resulted in Jake acquiring ... currency (GPL).

Click to expand...

And he also 'sells' his first article, and receives no payment. Again, irretrievably self-contradictory.

Given that people in the 23rd/24th centuries still get sick, doesn't it automatically follow that they also still "need money?"

Click to expand...

No. If I tell you that the sky is green and that two and two make four, given that the sky is not green, does it follow that two and two don't make four? Wesley Crusher remarks on the common cold as 'something humans used to get' so we can assume without any real reaching that that's the order of 'sickness' Soong is referring to. But certainly he's not referring to physical currency only.

It is true that people in the past had physical currency.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's true. But it makes absolutely no sense to interpret Soong's words in that way. Yet again your interpretation bids us regard the characters as speaking nonsense.

Pretty consistent really, there are dozens and dozens of pieces of dialog about buying, selling, owning inside of the Federation. There is only one single line, in one movie, where one character overtly states money doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

No, there are also numerous lines which only make sense if interpreted in that way. To interpret them your way requires us to believe characters are saying things for no reason or saying things which are meaningless ("currency-based economics").

Ronald D. Moore said:

By the time I joined TNG, Gene had decreed that money most emphatically did NOT exist in the Federation, nor did 'credits' and that was that. Personally, I've always felt this was a bunch of hooey, but it was one of the rules and that's that.

Women not being allowed to be Starfleet captains (I detest Turnabout Intruder). Granted, Roddenberry originally wanted a female XO, but that was turned down by the network execs as too radical.

Click to expand...

I always took Lester's ramblings as that of someone who was plain crazy.

Click to expand...

That's a logical way to rationalize it, but Roddenberry did allegedly state that it is meant to mean women aren't starship captains. Of course, if that's true, it's been rightfully ignored since Enterprise showed us female captains predating TOS.

Click to expand...

Did Roddenberry have much to do with Star Trek by the time "Turnabout Intruder" was made?

I always took Lester's ramblings as that of someone who was plain crazy.

Click to expand...

That's a logical way to rationalize it, but Roddenberry did allegedly state that it is meant to mean women aren't starship captains. Of course, if that's true, it's been rightfully ignored since Enterprise showed us female captains predating TOS.

Click to expand...

Did Roddenberry have much to do with Star Trek by the time "Turnabout Intruder" was made?

Here is a relevant portion from Roddenberry's story outline, dated May 8, 1968:

​As we’ll continue developing, Janice Lisette has become more bitter with each passing year over the fact she was born with what she considers disadvantages of a female body. Then suddenly on a minor expedition of a planet, she has discovered the answer -- a device which the ancients of this dead world once used to exchange the consciousness of two bodies. Very likely the device was conceived as a form of immortality whereby old bodies could be exchanged for young, new bodies. An incredible answer to every longing Janice has ever had -- an opportunity to place herself in not only the strong masculine form of a man she always envied, but also at the same time to exchange her life as an unimportant, middle-aged female scientist for the exciting life and prestige of a Starship Captain.

​(Helpful to our series, this situation allows us to emphasize as in few other stories that Kirk is one of an elite group -- one of only a few in the entire galaxy holding this rank. As Kirk, Janice will take over one of the most successful of such careers with promotions and futures even more exciting than the present.)

Click to expand...

Although Roddenberry's story is rampant with sexist assumptions and pomposity over his work, I do not believe the idea that woman cannot be Starship Captains is ever explicitly stated in the outline. That line must be Arthur Singer's.

Here is a relevant portion from Roddenberry's story outline, dated May 8, 1968:

​As we’ll continue developing, Janice Lisette has become more bitter with each passing year over the fact she was born with what she considers disadvantages of a female body. Then suddenly on a minor expedition of a planet, she has discovered the answer -- a device which the ancients of this dead world once used to exchange the consciousness of two bodies. Very likely the device was conceived as a form of immortality whereby old bodies could be exchanged for young, new bodies. An incredible answer to every longing Janice has ever had -- an opportunity to place herself in not only the strong masculine form of a man she always envied, but also at the same time to exchange her life as an unimportant, middle-aged female scientist for the exciting life and prestige of a Starship Captain.

​(Helpful to our series, this situation allows us to emphasize as in few other stories that Kirk is one of an elite group -- one of only a few in the entire galaxy holding this rank. As Kirk, Janice will take over one of the most successful of such careers with promotions and futures even more exciting than the present.)

Click to expand...

Although Roddenberry's story is rampant with sexist assumptions and pomposity over his work, I do not believe the idea that woman cannot be Starship Captains is ever explicitly stated in the outline. That line must be Arthur Singer's.

May have been mentioned already, Roddenberry's prohibition against conflict amongst the series' regulars on TNG. I never understood it especially considering the success and dynamics of the Spock-McCoy relationship.

I always took Lester's ramblings as that of someone who was plain crazy.

Click to expand...

That's a logical way to rationalize it, but Roddenberry did allegedly state that it is meant to mean women aren't starship captains. Of course, if that's true, it's been rightfully ignored since Enterprise showed us female captains predating TOS.

Click to expand...

Did Roddenberry have much to do with Star Trek by the time "Turnabout Intruder" was made?

Click to expand...

No. I was just going by the Star Trek Chronology, which makes a note that the line about no female starship captains seems unusually sexist for Star Trek and offers alternate ways of interpreting (eg, Lester may have meant Kirk's duties as a captain didn't allow him to spend time with her) before finishing off with saying Roddenberry's intent was the line was to mean that there are no female captains.

I think also he will see that we don’t have enough inter-character relationships among our continuing people. We need conflicts, disagreements, rich personality relationship between Kirk, Spock, McCoy and others. Otherwise, our “television family group” becomes a rather uninteresting assortment of similar individuals who stand around throwing each other lines and generally agreeing with each other.

Click to expand...

Of course, Roddenberry reversed his position on inter-character conflict twenty years later, which, ironically, caused quite a bit of inter-personal conflict behind the scenes of Star Trek: The Next Generation.